MANSUKHLAL NAGJIBHAI Vs. RAVJIBHAI POPATBHAI PATEL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Appellants in Second Appeal No.19 of 2008 are complaining that the respondents are guilty of willful disobedience of the order dtd. 24/8/2009 passed in Civil Application No.995 of 2008 and the order dtd. 13/5/2010 passed in Civil Application No.5273 of 2010. When the appellants filed above-said Second Appeal, the learned Single Judge of this Court had granted an order of status-quo to be maintained and this was ordered to be continued till final disposal of Second Appeal. However, Civil Application No.5273 of 2010 was filed subsequently by the respondents herein seeking for modification of the order of status quo granted on 24/8/2009 on Civil Application No.995 of 2008 in Second Appeal No.19 of 2008. This Court having heard the learned advocates passed the following order:

(2.) As could be seen from the above order, this Court by way of an interim order had restrained the revenue authorities including Mamlatdar, Jasdan from initiating any further proceedings with respect to mutation entries with regard to the land in question till final disposal of Second Appeal No.19 of 2008. It is the grievance of the complainant that despite order of status quo which had been granted on 1/2/2008 and continued on 24/8/2009 has been violated by the respondents. Undisputedly, order dtd. 24/8/2009 has been modified or in other words, order dtd. 24/8/2009 has got subsumed in the order dtd. 13/5/2010 whereunder there is only an order of restraint to the revenue authorities from mutating the revenue records. In that view of the matter, the petitioner complainant cannot be heard that there is any willful disobedience of the order dtd. 13/5/2010 or any other order particularly when there is no further steps taken by the revenue authorities. Be that as it may. If the complainant is aggrieved by any activity carried out by the respondents in the suit property, it would be open for the complainant to seek for such reliefs, as may be advised, in the pending Second Appeal No.19 of 2008. Hence, contempt petition stands dismissed.